Most US casualties in ET?

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by nightfighter, Nov 20, 2009.

  1. nightfighter

    nightfighter New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    In what battle in the World War II European Theater cost the U.S. (Western Front) the most casualties?
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2009
  2. jestor

    jestor New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Battle of Hürtgen Forest,33,000 casualties also the longest single battle the U.S. Army has ever fought in its history.
  3. 17thfabn

    17thfabn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    I'm going to have to challenge that. I believe it was the Battle of the Bulge that was the most costly battle in World WAr II for the USA.
  4. 17thfabn

    17thfabn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    In fact I believe that the Battle of the Bulge had the most casualties of ANY American Battle.
  5. nightfighter

    nightfighter New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    The following links indicate that the Battle of the Bulge resulted in 19,000 or so U.S. killed, while the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest resulted in, "at least 33,000 killed and incapacitated". What I find most interesting is that the Battle of the Bulge is famous and several movies and documentaries have been made about it, but the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest is virtually unknown to most people.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hürtgen_Forest#Background
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2010
  6. 17thfabn

    17thfabn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    All the sources I've seen for the Hurtgen Forest Battle give aproximatly 32,000 "casualties", the number you use, but do not break it down to how many of these were killed in action, and how many were wounded. This 32,000 number includes both. Typicaly there are 2 to 3 times as many wounded as killed in a battle so I would guess that around 10,000 of the above number were KIA, and 22,000 or so were wounded. From my reading a large number of the wounded were weather related, so the KIA number may in fact be even lower.

    Most sources for the Battle of the Bulge give a the following figures:
    Killed in action: 19,000
    Wounded in action: 47,000
    Captured 23,000
    So not including the captured the Battle of the Bulge had approximatley 68,000 casualties. total.

    It is a shame the Hurtgen Forest campaign gets so little notice. If you read unit histories of the Divisions that fought there it plays a prominent part in their stories. Since much of the fighting in the Hurtgen Forest occured at around the time of the Battle of the Bulge it gets over shadowed.
  7. jestor

    jestor New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    129
    Location:
    Mississippi
    It is a shame the Hurtgen Forest campaign gets so little notice. If you read unit histories of the Divisions that fought there it plays a prominent part in their stories. Since much of the fighting in the Hurtgen Forest occured at around the time of the Battle of the Bulge it gets over shadowed.[/QUOTE]

    The reason it gets so little notice is because,it was deliberately covered up, it was a big mistake to go in there.

Share This Page